'This Isn't a Theocracy,' NYTimes Editor Explains While Defending Obama Contraception Rule
“Stop Compromising,” pleaded New York Times Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal on his “Loyal Opposition” blog Wednesday morning.
Rosenthal was aggrieved to hear Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod suggest the president was open to “compromise”on the administration’s plan requiring religious institutions to violate their beliefs and cover birth control in their employees’ health insurance plans. (Apparently compromise is no longer a good thing in Washington.)
Rosenthal (pictured) urged Obama to make a more full-throated defense of the rule, pointing out that “this isn’t a theocracy.”
(Columnist Charles Blow joined in on Twitter: “The American government is in DC, not the Vatican.”)
Rosenthal wrote, in part:
This really is a health issue, as opposed to a purely political matter. About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and expanding access to birth control could lower the abortion rate. The Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers, has called birth control a medical necessity (not a mere convenience) “to ensure women’s health and well-being.” I understand that the Catholic Church in particular feels strongly about birth control, but this isn’t a theocracy. Religious doctrine cannot dictate public policy. (That’s actually a conservative position, in the true meaning of the word.)
Columnist Charles Blow made the same arguments, taking to his Twitter feed early Wednesday afternoon to issue these gems:
Ppl use birth control in America...A LOT. Even Catholics. And thank God for it!!! #HHS If I had my druthers, they'd pass it out in church.
The American government is in DC, not the Vatican. I'm sorry. But, this has really gotten under my skin...
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Birth Control
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:21am.
Suddenly all those so called conservatives want the government to be paying for their birth control.
If people want birth control they ought to pay for it themselves. Why is it any one else's responsibility to pay for my birth control.
I just don't get it.
You could probably buy six months of birth control with the money spent on one month's cell phone bill.
IMHO this is a Wag the Dog issue to distract from the state of the economy. The middle class is disappearing into the abyss and we are being misdirected.
Wag the Dog
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:02am.
HR Girl is the winner! The Obama administration would love to debate this issue endlessly. It positions them as the dispensers of "free" birth control vs those rotten Republicans.
From the First Amendment of the Constitution...
Submitted by pcnav on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:08am.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Obama telling Catholic institutions to offer birth control, which has been against the values of the church for... forever strictly violates the first amendment. No where in the constitution will you find it written that free birth control is an entitlement that cannot be withheld under certain circumstances.
This IS a religious freedom issue folks. If the Supreme Court does its jobs correctly this will be another nail in the coffin for Obamacare, the worst dictatorial decree this country has ever seen.
more than that, pc
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:24am.
pcnav, it's more than that. He's been thumbing his nose at the Constitution ever since Day One which is Jan 20, 2009. His actions of the last month and half are those of a dictator and not just ObamaCare. He's got a huge list of offenses against him at this point and this is just the latest one.
Don't make it sound like it's just one or two issues, it's far more than that.
-Jon
Blow...
Submitted by Mark81150 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:35am.
"Ppl use birth control in America...A LOT. Even Catholics. And thank God for it!!! #HHS If I had my druthers, they'd pass it out in church.
The American government is in DC, not the Vatican. I'm sorry. But, this has really gotten under my skin..."! Charles Blow(hard)
Well apparently, it is a theocracy to liberals like Blow, the church of Liberalism, if he'd force others to hand out condoms in church.
If I had my druthers.... Blow would be working for the Socialist Workers Daily, instead of a supposedly reputable paper. But it's only reputable to the hard left, the center doesn't care, and the right think of it as fishwrap. Because as God is my witness, only a hardcore leftwinger like Blow, could think leaving people alone in their faith, is a "theocracy".. to everybody else, it's called freedom of religion..
a case he'd never make, if the nation's muslims had not already opted out by serving muslims only, and hiring only muslims. Imagine him saying they should hand out condums with prayer rugs.
he'd choke first.
"Religious doctrine cannot dictate public policy..."
Submitted by ChrisNH on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:38am.
But Public Policy should dictate Religious doctrine?
So much for the separation of 'church & state.'
Good grief! This guy is an Editor?
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:13am.
Isn't knowledge of language and definitions a qualification for journalism any more?
He apparently doesn't even know what a theocracy is.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -Inigo Montoya
If you subscribe to Rosenthal's and Blow's upside-down definition, only when religious freedom is eliminated can we avoid a theocracy.
Also, Rosenthal and Blow needn't worry; this administration has never said they will "compromise."
What Carney stated as the Obama policy is to "work with"
The White House has NOT "softened their stance" as this reporter claims. They have only softened their language, using terms like "allay concerns," which is B as in B, S as in S.
But it sounds good.
wack job logic
Submitted by eksbdan9 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:18am.
What gets me about this kind of stuff is the logic employed, which makes me fearful about where these people want to lead us into the future. Is not a theocracy the "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided?" First he liberalizes the definition so that those wanting theocracy are those who want government to leave them alone, which is the polar opposite of a theocracy. Next, you push the idea of an opposite of theocracy in that system of government which seeks to force their worldview (which includes all systems which have a belief in any ultimate truth claim, including the assumptions behind evolution, materialism and socialist, humanist government) on others! The liberal loons that play these games are not stupid, they just want what they want...and therefore have taken the place of their rube-ish religious boogey-men of yore who, according to them, wanted to rule the world and brutalize everyone else despite having any logical honesty in what they believed. Believe me, the liberal theocracy, as the 20th century communist pograms have shown, is what real evil is all about.
Their hypocrisy runs deep
Submitted by b-dob on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:23pm.
"wanted to rule the world and brutalize everyone else"
Which is exactly what the Muslim extremists, who these same liberals defend to the end regardless of action, actually want to do. Imagine the outrage if a Muslim restaurant was coerced by the government to serve pork.
You're right, MB
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:41am.
For one thing, Rosenthal's assumption are intentionally absurd:
ROSENTHAL: ". . . About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and expanding access to birth control could lower the abortion rate."
This myth goes back at least as far as the Clinton Administration, and almost certainly to the '60s.
Never before in our nation's history has contraception been so affordable and so readily available. The poor can get free contraception from county health services, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, and other public outlets.
Yet, DESPITE the availability of contraception and its use in our public school sex education programs, the percentage of unplanned births is far greater now than it was four decades ago.
The issue here is shifting the burden from the government to employers, and in this case, and employer that is doctrinally opposed to such measures.
ROSENTHAL: " . . . The Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers, has called birth control a medical necessity (not a mere convenience) “to ensure women’s health and well-being.”
That's BS. It is not a medical necessity. Were that the case, unplanned births would've been far greater in number decades ago when contraception was not as available.
We're not treating a virus with a vaccine here. We're dealing with choices made by individual women. If a woman is sexually active and wants to avoid pregnancy, she can pursue contraceptives from physicians. Those who are opposed to contraceptives must use other means or change behavior.
But the Left is again clouding the issue. They are focusing on the contraceptives, but the RCC is also opposed to underwriting the morning-after pill for its employees.
ROSENTHAL: ". . . I understand that the Catholic Church in particular feels strongly about birth control, but this isn’t a theocracy. . . "
Like MB wrote, this is BS. The RCC isn't imposing its policy; it's being subjected to one.
ROSENTHAL: " . . . Religious doctrine cannot dictate public policy. (That’s actually a conservative position, in the true meaning of the word.) .
Huh? The RCC isn't dicating public policy. It's public policy that is dictating to a church in violation of the First Amendment.
The idea that Washington can't make exemptions is baloney. Religious sects like the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are exempt from paying into Social Security if they are self-employed. The city employees of Galveston, TX are exempted from participating in Social Security altogether.
This was little more than a heavy-handed Obama power play, and it now reveals to millions why the Dems avoided discussion on the details in the Assured Health Care Act.
Health issue?
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:11am.
Who ever got sick and died for lack of a condom? I mean, besides some teen, from heartache.
And what about "erectile dysfuntion?"
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:21pm.
Will health insurance have to cover Viagra prescriptions?
Thought that was happening already
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:26pm.
I thought it was already covered by insurance.....
-Jon
Hopefully NOMAS will pick up the spear on the Viagra thing.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:27pm.
The National Organization for Men Against Sexism advocates a perspective that is pro-feminist, gay affirmative, anti-racist, dedicated to enhancing men's lives, and committed to justice on a broad range of social issues including class, age, religion, and physical abilities.
So they're a bunch of pansies?
Submitted by GW on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 4:03pm.
.
So to summarize
Submitted by mustango on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:28am.
A hospital that wishes to adhere to the doctrines of a commonly practiced faith = Theocracy
A federal government that would FORCE them to violate said faith or else be shut down = Not theocracy
This is a dangerous precedent to set here. If Catholics can be bullied out of the hospital business what's to stop Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians etc. from likewise being forced to abandon the administration of care?
Defending this outrage: par for the media course
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:18am.
It should come as no surprise - zero, zip, nada - that the Make Believe Media is defending this petty dictator's latest outrage. While Republicans and even the odd liberal Democrat cry foul, reporters still circle the wagons around the man they still love (see Matt Lauer's marshmallow Super Bowl interview). It's obvious that the Constitution means nothing to this arrogant crowd, except when they perceive any threat to "freedom of speech".
Blow, Charles
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:24am.
Nobody cares about your useless opinion.
Come November, Americans will overwhelmingly reject the Constitution-trampling socialist Obysmal and his lackeys.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Oh yes, it is a theocracy.
Submitted by needle on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:43am.
'This Isn't a Theocracy,' NYTimes editor explains, lying through his teeth, as usual.
Oh yes, it is a theocracy; it is an atheistic theocracy,brought to you by the NYTimes and its liberal media acolytes.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Well at least this issue confirms...
Submitted by optimist on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:25am.
...that the separation of church and state is a one way street for liberals. I mean, we all knew that was true for decades, but we never had an egregious example to point to like this case.
The NYT, which keeps
Submitted by celator on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:34am.
The NYT, which keeps insisting it is a legitimate newspaper, is once again following the bouncing ball, singing the praises of their Glorious Leader Obama, and getting ticked off when normal Americans prefer to sing their own tune.
Rosenthal & Blow - sounds like directions during a physical!
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:47am.
Rosenthal's contention "this isn't a theocracy" completely misses the point. Government cannot establish a religion, nor can it tell people how they should practice or tell the religion how it can practice. This is an unprecedented intrusion into church doctrine, and not only for Catholics but for orthodox Jews, Muslims and some Protestant sects. The directive has to do with zero-dollar co-pay insurance coverage of contraception (including Plan B) for women who work for these church-related institutions that align their insurance coverage with their religious doctrine. Contraception is enormously expensive to a health insurance plan's pharmacy benefit, because if there is no copay required, it essentially means all forms of contraception (oral, medical device) must be paid for, and the ability of the pharmacy benefit manager to negotiate rebates with the manufacturers of these contraceptive products (the ones that are not available generically) is gone. These rebates help keep the cost of insurance down for everyone, not just women. Of course, those dimwitted leftwing ideologues don't see that business part of it, they only see the opportunity to push this down the throat of those religious groups that do not offer contraception coverage now as a "gotcha".
Contraception Rule
Submitted by hkopcf on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:25pm.
I am to old to have sex. Can I wave my Govt supplied contraceptives and get an
46" LED Samsong HD TV?
Thanks Pres Obama in advance
Harry K
WTF?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:49pm.
"This really is a health issue, as opposed to a purely political matter. "
So, becoming pregnant is now a "health issue," one that is so destructive to our society, our way of life, that it must be avoided at all costs, up to an including universal coverage (meaning free, to the "end user," anyways) for preventive measures like contraceptives? WTF?
Hay, liberals, I know this is hard for you to understand, but children are NOT parasites! They're a beneficial "symbiont," if you insist on framing this as a "health issue," one that is vitally important for our own survival as a species! Your ignorance in this matter is setting us all on the path to our own extinction! How long will it be until we are put on the Endangered Species list?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not a Theocracy??
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:13pm.
Um, given the favorability this poser in chief has shown to the Islamists(all of them) not to mention his comment about this being a Muslim nation and how his actions and attitudes fit perfectly more in line with Islam than a Democrat, hell yeah, it might not be a theocracy, but he sure as hell is trying for one!
You know there's no way in hell he wouldn't be for making this a Muslim nation(more like dictatorship, since we're there already).
Rosenthal, you're a blooming idiot. It's not about birth control or the health of women or any of that crap. It's all about control and you and your ilk are just eager to give that up the way you phoney balonies give up other things thinking it's for the people's best interests.
-Jon
And since illegal aliens are included...
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:13pm.
...in ObamaCare, wouldn't that mean this provision provides free birth control for everyone in the world?
Not a theocracy, but an...
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 3:39pm.
Obamanation
(**Ichabod**)
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...